I’m from the UK suing isn’t as big a thing here. I’m 30 and I have never even spoke to a lawyer/ solicitor once so that whole world is a mystery to me. TIA!
In: 20
This question can’t be answered without knowing where you’re asking about because obviously laws are different everywhere.
NAL, but have some personal experience.
Your jurisdiction (the place responsible for making and interpreting the laws and previous decisions) is going to make a big difference in exactly how the process starts, plays out, and ends.
The general idea is pretty simple. Someone has done something, and because of that, you have XYZ losses. Most of the time this is going to be strictly about money losses, but there a lot of different details that could come up and different results that could come out of this. We’ll just keep it simple and pretend it’s only about money. So to be “made whole again” (which just means so that you are back to where you were before the bad thing happened), you sue that person. This may not actually be possible, but we’ll just pretend that it can be done. For example, someone threw a ball through your window, and it cost you $2000 to repair, repaint, and so on. So you sue them for $2000. We will leave off all the weird and wacky stuff that can happen for “emotional damage” and the like.
Again, there are a lot of different ways this can go. It may involve lawyers. It may not. Some places have special courts for dealing with small lawsuits, precisely to keep costs from getting out of control.
In any case, you have to notify the court that you are suing, and in some way the person you are suing must be notified. The court may do that. You may be required to that. It depends on where you are at. Sometimes it must be made public knowledge through some media outlet. Not sure how often that is the case, though. After that, there are a few different phases this can go through.
There might be some sort of arbitration that is either required by law or by the contract that you might be using as the basis of the lawsuit. This can vary wildly depending on place and context.
The person you sued might try to have the whole thing thrown out. For instance, if it is clear you are just suing to shut someone up or to bully them, some places will have that thrown out before anything even gets started. But some do not have that in place.
If it’s clear that the law would be against you even if all your arguments and presented facts are true, some (I think probably nearly all) will toss it. Judges generally cannot decide facts before a case starts, but they can still decide law. Details can vary wildly here.
In some places, there may be some sort of shuffling on who you are actually suing. You might start off suing “A”, but “A” convinces the court that if they lose, then really it’s “B”‘s fault, or that “A” would not have any money anyway, so might as well go straight to the source. The court may decide that you really should be suing “B” instead.
The jurisdiction may also be in dispute. You may really want it being decided *here* because the law is strongly on your side. For obvious reasons, your opponent may want it *there* for that exact same reason.
In rare cases, the judge may need to recuse himself (take himself off the case) for any number of reasons. Generally, it’s whenever there is any question about their impartiality (being completely fair to each party). In that case, a new judge needs to be found to take their place.
Then you are going to have some sort of fact-finding phase. Again, each place will be different here, but the general idea is that both sides are trying to get as many facts straight as possible. Some places may have a way for both sides to agree on some facts beforehand so that they never actually have to be brought up in court. This can be quite intensive, and there can be a lot of back-and-forth to determine if something is relevant to a case.
Then there will generally be some sort of court date. Each place will do this differently. You may have a judge. You may have a judge with “side judges” that are just for that case. You might have a jury. You may have a single date. You may have to come back several times. You may have witnesses. Some places have very formal ways to conduct court business. Some places resemble a conversation.
During all of this, the judge may or may not hint as to which way things are going. The judge may or may not encourage the sides to try to come to an agreement before he has to give a judgement. The judge may or may not ask questions themselves.
What needs to be proven and how certain it needs to be will also vary wildly from place to place, and possibly even from case to case. Sometimes the judge has a lot of freedom to decide this.
And finally, if the sides cannot agree beforehand, the judge (or jury) will give a verdict. There may or may not be a separate court date to determine the exact “damages” that need to be paid to you.
And just because you are awarded the victory here does not mean that the person you sued will actually pay. You may be forced to actually go to court *again* to get a judgement that says that the person who was ordered to pay you, actually has to do it. It can get extremely tiresome.
Then there is the issue of collection. You may be lucky and the person just pays what they should. Or they may claim that they do not actually have the money. And guess what that might mean? That’s right, you might have to go to court *again* to prove that they actually have the money to pay. How this works is going to vary wildly as well, depending on place and context.
Finally, you wondered about who pays the court and lawyer costs. Yeah… This one can vary to a degree that I think can only be considered “crazy”. Some places, each person is on the hook for their own attorney fees. Some places, the loser has to pay. Some places, it may be divvied up depending on exactly “how bad” you lost. Some places will have exceptions for misusing the courts for harassment. Some will not. Some will give the judges leeway to do any of this.
As you noticed, all of this is quite varied and can get very complex. The only real way to know what to do is to consult with a lawyer/solicitor. Even then, my experience is that they will say, “Well, it *could* go like this…” And in addition to all the legislative laws and the precedence cases, each jurisdiction may have its own special rules about exactly what you need to do, and any particular judge may have even *more* special rules about the exact procedure to follow. Not following these rules will definitely not make you a favorite of the court.
So.
Then someone may decide that they do not like the judgement and want to appeal…
But I am going to stop there. I hope this gave an overview.
Also, if I can give my own two cents: avoid lawsuits if you can. Try to find *any* agreement if possible. Going to court is basically a crapshoot in many cases. It’s expensive, and time-consuming, and stressful. Even if you have insurance for this kind of thing, it’s still a royal pain in the ass. Your opponent is not going to play fair. Things may come out that you never intended anyone to ever know. You may have to play dirty yourself, and then you will need to sleep at night. It’s best to avoid it, if possible.
That said, fuck lawsuit scammers. Those guys need to go to prison forever.
It’ll vary wildly by jurisdiction and based on what you’re suing over of course, but here’s a short version of my experience with a personal injury lawsuit in Queensland Australia (it was under state law). I imagine there’s some variation on all of this throughout the *common law* anglosphere, civil law countries are probably wildly different.
I was attacked whilst riding my motorcycle by a very large dog that’d escaped the house it lived at. Serious injuries I carry to this day as a result. After getting out of hospital and realising I had serious financial issues both with healthcare and loss of work (9 months) and permanent injury as a result, I personally went and had a polite conversation with the dog owners. They’d already had a casual conversation with a solicitor at that point as it happened. I explained my situation, and checked they had insurance. He told me his general advice was that it was covered under his household liability insurance. I pretty much at that point said alright, I’m going to raise a lawsuit over it. I had no intention of costing THEM money directly, but if their insurance would cover all my costs, great.
At that point I had a conversation with a law firm. We had a meeting, they asked me lots of questions, and advised me they believed we had a valid case. I paid an amount of money in good faith to secure their services (EDIT – from memory it was $500AUD), the balance of the suit to be paid on conclusion. This was NOT a no-win-no-fee firm, so I’d be liable for their fees either way. At that point they wrote what amounts to a letter of claim to the dog owners, who then would have forwarded it to their insurance company. From that point on, pretty much most interactions were between my solicitor and the insurance company.
We got medical evaluations, they also got medical evaluations, the solicitor through a lot of interviews with me and established tables of valid claims worked out a total claim amount. That went to the courts. The courts mandated mediation.
That whole process to mediation took three years. Once mediation was ordered my solicitor advised me it was time to hire a barrister, which we did. Mediation then took place between my barrister, with my solicitor briefing him, and the barrister and solicitor from the insurance company. At the end of those negotiations (which started with a fuckoff ridiculous low-ball offer and ended up with a middling low-ball offer from the insurance company) I was given the advice from my barrister that whilst I *might* get a higher amount in court, it was highly unpredictable in domestic pet cases, and it was probably just best to settle. I took that advice and settled.
All told fees and whatnot worked out to 20% of the settlement amount, took about four weeks after we all agreed on it to clear, I got a cheque.
I’ve got to say the whole experience wasnt worth the cheque.
If someone has caused you harm, you make an appointment with a lawyer who specializes in a specific area of law that applies to the harm caused to you. Vehicle accident? Talk to a lawyer who specializes in vehicle accidents. Personal injury? You need a personal injury lawyer. Someone defrauded you? Seek a lawyer who specializes in fraud cases.
At the appointment, you explain to the lawyer what happened to you. The lawyer may ask you questions to clarify what happened.
If the lawyer feels that you have sufficient legal ground to pursue a lawsuit (and thinks you have a good chance of winning) then he/she will accept your case and take you on as a client. In many cases you will need to pay a retainer upfront, with the final bill settled after the case is over.
Then your lawyer files the paperwork for a lawsuit in court.
How the lawyer is paid differs on a literal case by case basis, but for lawsuits, payment is often a percentage of what the other party has to pay out if you win. If you lose, and don’t appeal the ruling, then in many cases you have to pay the lawyer for their hours worked. Though some lawyers advertise that they don’t get anything unless you win.
>UK suing isn’t as big a thing here
Not as litigious as the US, but still plenty happening in the UK (well England and Wales), just we mostly call it ‘taking someone to court’ though, rather suing.
In the UK when dealing with small claims (when the claim is for £10,000 or less) it’s actually very simple and mostly done online until the hearing which is likely to be a small room. Not a large court room. In most cases you pay your own fees.
It gets more complicated in larger courts and for larger amounts though.
Worth remembering that the UK we don’t really do punitive damages, so if you take Burger King to court because the coffee was too hot and you burned your arm, you aren’t going to get millions.
You hire a lawyer and they tell you what to do and pretty much do all the work, most of it anyway. As I understand, in the UK the losing party has to pay for all the legal fees.
You send a letter to the other person or organisation giving notice you are making a claim, then try to settle – the courts expect this.
Submit the forms to the court with the fee. The judge decides if the case can be done on paper or needs a hearing. If you need expert witnesses the court has to say it’s ok. At the hearing you can be a litigant in person alone, bring a non-lawer friend or advisor with you (a McKenzie friend) as a litigant in person – but while they can advise and make notes they generally can’t make submissions or question people, or have a solicitor or barrister representing you.
Submissions are heard, damages awarded, limited fixed costs awarded, all costs awarded in some cases (unusual in small claims and usually for unreasonable behaviour or where it’s in a contract)
Then the person with the judgment against them pays, otherwise further submissions can be made for things like bailiffs or wage deduction.
That’s the basics under £10,000. The process is slightly different for higher value claims.
My situation was kind of, well, different. I discovered the company I worked for had been committing fraud for YEARS. I tried to handle it in house, thinking that it was just a bad apple or two, not a whole orchard of bad apple trees.
After I was laid off I contacted a lawyer who specializes in white collar crime. A few meetings with her and her colleagues where we discussed the specifics, and I wrote a 29 page report of EVERYTHING I knew, how my claims could be proven, explaining the smoking gun evidence I collected to protect myself, etc.
I paid $400 to file the lawsuit under seal in federal court. The DOJ and various senior members of our military interviewed me, then turned their sights on the company I worked for.
After a year long investigation they met with me again, and that company, and we came to an agreement that would make the government and me whole again.
If it went to court then the company would have been forced to pay up to 3x the amount the wronged, plus up to 10K USD for false claim they were caught telling the government. So it was in their best interest to settle.
Lawyers in that particular area of law work on “contingency”, which means they don’t get paid if they lose, only from a successful litigation – so they typically get paid half the realtors share (my share) plus all of their billable hours of work get paid by the defendant.
All said, the company I worked for was practically broke, and so normally the DOJ would not pursue recovering damages because it would cost more to investigate than would pay for said investigation – but it my case they made an exception because Service-Member lives were on the line if they wouldn’t act and and the conduct was so grossly wrong.
In the end I sleep better at night knowing the faulty products we made are going to be made right, so it was absolutely worth it. And getting my mortgage paid off early was a nice bonus.
There are a lot of personal anecdotes in this thread, but from an ELI5 point of view:
When you believe someone has wronged you by acting in a way that goes against the way we as a society expect people to behave, you can ask a third party (a judge, or multiple judges depending on your jurisdiction) for their impartial and binding opinion on your dispute. This will always involve two things: notifying the court so they can schedule your case and notifying the other party.
Sometimes you’ll need a legal professional to assist you, and sometimes you can represent yourself in court. There are also various requirements to the way you notify the other party, intended to protect them, like requiring a certain way of delivering the court summons and a certain time between the delivery and the actual trial. But that’s jurisdiction-specific.
The consequences of winning or losing depend on the jurisdiction as well. Typically the losing party has to pay the costs of the winning party, but this is not a hard rule.
The winning party is entitled to whatever the judgment is. If the other party does not cooperate, there are ways to enforce the judgment without the cooperation of the losing party.
From what I understand, if you get sued for fun in hopes of winning money, you can counter sue for defamation (or whatever the term is). However the original party can drop their charges and no issue will come of it. You can pursue it further but usually leads no where and you need to pay for lawyer fees.
Latest Answers